Does what Epic wants for App Stores What are other game developers Really Need? -
As mobile game and app developers scream for air in the face of the duopoly tax of 30% that players pay on nearly all mobile game revenues worldwide, Epic Games has emerged as the leading gaming company fighting for the right to open computing in mobile.
privately asked both large and small studios of games alike which features they were looking for to see, and this is the answers they gave to see.
Background: The Slow Decline of Open Computing, and the 30% tax on apps
The world of computing has never been more accessible than it is now. Historically games and software creators have relied on the open computing on PC and Mac platforms since it allowed the developers to create titles in any way they see fit, have a direct relationship to their users and select payment options which work best for them. There were no gatekeepers -only a computer an individual player, and a game. The world has changed.
In the present, over half of people's computing screen time is on mobile devices -- an increase in the sharein addition, nearly 100% of mobile OS markets is shared between Apple and Google. Thanks to this domination on mobile market share as well as restrictive controls on distribution of games and online commerce, the realm of open computing is in peril like never before. This is causing a huge cost to consumers as well as game and app developers.
In this case, both Google as well as Apple's app stores enforce a 30% cost for sales of games and in-game items distributed through their platforms. Apple controls 100% of the distribution of games and ecommerce for iOS devices, while Google allows OEM marketplace applications and sideloading of mobile games, however, it severely limits third-party in-game payment for games that are distributed via Google Play.
Google Play does offer a third-party payment integration option for only a few game developers through the " user choice billing" pilot but "user option billing" has a pricey annual marketplace fees that range from 26% to 36%, even if you use your own payment provider and assume all the risks and obligations for payments.
The result of Apple and Google's control over such a large share of global computing is that they have a default 30 percent tax for mobile games and apps. This tax, paying by users, but which is disregarded by developers of games, and hinders free computing as well as e-commerce. In light of this hold in open computing, gamers big and small are convinced that something has to change.
What are the Game Designers who Aren't Epic Want?
Our team at commenced in a long-running quest of a few months to speak with game studios big and small about the things they would like to see happen in rules for mobile apps. While not everyone agreed on each aspect, these are the three most important things they told us they wanted:
1. iOS to support sideloading games without scare screens.
iOS is long-time restricted to "sideloading" games and apps that are sideloaded when apps are downloaded from outside the App Store from the developer's website or a different market. The sideloading feature allows users to buy and developers to distribute and sell games however the developer sees fit and that the user agrees to go along with. Android allows sideloading of applications and games, however only with cumbersome warnings known as "scare screens" which warn mobile phone owners of the dangers of "downloading software from the internet." Many of the game developers we spoke with thought that Apple should support sideloading and it is important that Apple as well as Google should not use the excessive self-serving screens which denigrate software distribution beyond their storefronts for apps.
2. You can allow unlimited "steering" and embedded payment via third-party payment platform.
Both Google as well as Apple have strict restrictions on pricing and purchase options that are offered by third-party payment services outside the app stores. The same item can be offered at cheaper prices for the user, but game developers aren't allowed to steer their players to those alternatives, provide links to different purchase experiences, or embed purchases from third party vendors into their game. Although many developers have found great value in transactions through app stores, the overwhelming preferred option was to allow players and developers the choice by doing away with steering or embedded restrictions on payment.
3. 0% fee for embedded and steering payments as well as embedded fees.
Offering steering or embedded payments is one thing, but like we've witnessed with Google's "user preference billing" pilot, the ability to perform something as well as the financial incentive to do that are two distinct aspects. The pilot of "user choice billing" offering a massive 26% cost for transactions made through third-party payment providers, combined with the fees those providers charge, this equates to a $0 gain for most game designers. The game developers we interviewed believed that 0% was a fair cut for transactions outside the app store; however most seemed to be in favour of some sort of financial reward for the app stores that could help to increase the downloading and use of games. However the cut of 26% of each transaction made by a third party is quite different from what game developers thought was fair.
What's Next
While there are other subtle desires regarding the way the app stores function that developers want to have, these three wants constitute the root of what they believe would bring about real change in open computing for mobile.
About
